I found this on the Al Franken portion of air america radio which will be broadcast in San Diego on 1360 AM, KPOP starting monday

GOOD POINTS, FROM LEFT AND RIGHT

Two pieces deservedly reverberating around the blogosphere...

From today's Boston Globe editorial page:

IMAGINE IF supporters of Bill Clinton had tried in 1996 to besmirch the military record of his opponent, Bob Dole. After all, Dole was given a Purple Heart for a leg scratch probably caused, according to one biographer, when a hand grenade thrown by one of his own men bounced off a tree. And while the serious injuries Dole sustained later surely came from German fire, did the episode demonstrate heroism on Dole's part or a reckless move that ended up killing his radioman and endangering the sergeant who dragged Dole off the field?

The truth, according to many accounts, is that Dole fought with exceptional bravery and deserves the nation's gratitude. No one in 1996 questioned that record. Any such attack on behalf of Clinton, an admitted Vietnam draft dodger, would have been preposterous.

Yet amazingly, something quite similar is happening today as supporters of President Bush attack the Vietnam record of Senator John Kerry.

And from the conservative Weekly Standard:

[I]n 2004, Republicans find themselves supporting a candidate, George W. Bush, with a slender and ambiguous military record against a man whose combat heroism has never (until now) been disputed. Further--and here we'll let slip a thinly disguised secret--Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively few of them find personally or politically appealing. This is not the choice Republicans are supposed to be faced with. The 1990s were far better. In those days the Democrats did the proper thing, nominating a draft-dodger to run against George H.W. Bush, who was the youngest combat pilot in the Pacific theater in World War II, and then later, in 1996, against Bob Dole, who left a portion of his body on the beach at Anzio.

Republicans have no such luck this time, and so they scramble to reassure themselves that they nevertheless are doing the right thing, voting against a war hero. The simplest way to do this is to convince themselves that the war hero isn't really a war hero. If sufficient doubt about Kerry's record can be raised, we can vote for Bush without remorse. But the calculations are transparently desperate. Reading some of the aI anti-Kerry attacks over the last several weeks, you might conclude that this is the new conservative position: A veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam, and then exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place.

Needless to say, the proposition will be a hard sell in those dim and tiny reaches of the electorate where voters have yet to make up their minds. Indeed, it's far more likely that moderates and fence-sitters will be disgusted by the lengths to which partisans will go to discredit a rival. But this anti-Kerry campaign is not designed to win undecided votes. It's designed to reassure uneasy minds.

Their is a huge diference between Bob Dole's Purple Hearts and those of John Kerry. True the medals have the same meaning "wounds recived from enemy action" however they cannot be compaired, also Kerry requested to be reasigned, using an obscure regulation. He basically abandoned those men that he commanded.

CRAWFORD, Texas – Former Republican Sen. Bob Dole suggested Sunday that John Kerry apologize for past testimony before Congress about alleged atrocities during the Vietnam War and joined critics of the Democratic presidential candidate who say he received an early exit from combat for "superficial wounds."

Dole also called on Kerry to release all the records of his service in Vietnam.

Separately, President Bush's re-election campaign continued to deny links to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an anti-Kerry group running ads in three states, after the resignation of a campaign volunteer who appeared in the group's new ad.

With Kerry taking a break from campaigning, running mate John Edwards said Bush needs to tell the group to pull its ads, a step the White House and the Bush campaign refuse to take. The White House and Bush's campaign note that Kerry has benefited from more than $62 million worth of similar advertising against the president.

"This is the moment of truth for President Bush," Edwards said in North Carolina. "The American people have to hear directly that these ads need to come off the air." Kerry also fought back in another new ad.

Dole told CNN's "Late Edition" that he warned Kerry months ago about going "too far" and that the Democrat may have himself to blame for the current situation, in which polls show him losing support among veterans.

"One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons," Dole said. "The next day he's standing there, 'I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.' Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam," said Dole, whose World War II wounds left him without the use of his right arm.

Dole added: "And here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out."

Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton said: "It's unfortunate that Senator Dole is making statements that official U.S. Navy records prove false. This is partisan politics, not the truth."

Other Kerry supporters also rose to his defense.

"Senator Kerry carries shrapnel in his thigh as distinct from President Bush who carries two fillings in his teeth from his service in the Alabama National Guard, which seems to be his only time that he showed up," John Podesta, former chief of staff in the Clinton White House, said on ABC's "This Week."

Bush served stateside in the Guard during the Vietnam years. Podesta's reference was to the White House's release of documents earlier this year showing Bush's dental visits during his Guard years after questions arose about whether he had always reported for duty.

Bush-Cheney campaign manager Ken Mehlman also blamed Kerry for the ongoing debate, complaining on NBC's "Meet the Press" that "Kerry himself has attacked the president for his service during the Vietnam years," while the Republican's campaign has "so strongly praised" Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam.

The Bush campaign also said the Federal Election Commission should immediately dismiss what it termed a "frivolous" complaint by Kerry's campaign alleging coordination between the re-election effort and the Swift Boat group.

The White House and the Bush campaign for weeks have denied any connection to the Swift Boat organization, whose early financial support came largely from a prominent Texas businessman with longtime ties to the state's top Republicans, including Bush.

The group's latest ad includes a Bush-Cheney volunteer, retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier, condemning Kerry's 1971 congressional testimony that Dole spoke of. Cordier was a prisoner of war during Vietnam.

"Colonel Cordier did not inform the campaign of his involvement in the advertisement," a Bush campaign statement said. "Because of his involvement Colonel Cordier will no longer participate as a volunteer for Bush-Cheney '04."

A new Kerry TV ad urged the president to "denounce the smear" and 'get back to the issues" because America deserves better." The 30-second commercial, to air in the same three states as the Swift Boat group ad – Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin – compares Kerry's situation to the 2000 primary campaign when "Bush smeared John McCain."

McCain has condemned the ads and called on the president to do so, too.

In response, Bush's campaign released a copy of a letter it was sending to television station managers on Monday defending itself from the claims in the new Kerry ad.

Questions mounted over the motives of Kerry's critics, two of whom had praised his service in 1996, even as Kerry's supporters faced questions about the candidate. Among the allegations is that Kerry lied about being in neutral Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968.

"I don't think anyone knows for sure whether or not they were in Cambodia that night, but they were near Cambodia on Christmas Eve," John Hurley, who heads a pro-Kerry veterans group, said on "Fox News Sunday." "He was five miles into Cambodia on a different occasion."

Another allegation is that Kerry was not under enemy fire as after-action reports say he was, an incident for which he received a Bronze Star, one of five medals earned in Vietnam.

"The after-action reports were written from Kerry's spot reports from that day," said Kerry critic Van Odell, also appearing on the same program. "None of us knew he even got the Bronze Star until more recently."

---

quote:

Admin: A note to all. Please refrain from posting copyrighted articles word for word on this forum. Common Internet protocol dictates an opening paragraph or two is acceptable and then a link to the article.

The above articles have been edited. Where no link is found, a note has been added.

Thanks.

---

---

quote:

Tjuncle, as much as I appreciate you finding this information, I'd appreciate it even more if you'd just summarize it, include the link and give us your comments. I fear our right-wing brethren will start posting whole articles when they return from their current adventures.

---

I myself pledge to keep it brief and to the point, in that spirit here's a link to a debate between John O'Neill and Tom Oliphant from a couple of days ago on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer. I think it goes a long way to explain why the swift boat veterans for truth does not have a foot to stand on from a journalists perspective

www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/vietnam_8-19.html

Wombat88; I guess it's ok for your left-wing brethren to cut and paste but not the right-wingers?

By the way I do have some good pics of my last trip to TJ if I can get them developed

Bob Dole needs to explain how you get schrapnel in your thigh and not bleed.
I guess that uses the same twisted logic as going to war to round up all the WMD that Sadaam had stockpiled then when none exist still proclaim
" Mission Accomplished !! "

Roadglide, noooo ... a small cut and paste can be useful, but pages and pages -- from anywhere -- is a major drag. I like seeing references (like the moveonpac site with the Apple-like commercials), and maybe some short blurbs, but most of these political arguments are so long-winded that ... well, you know.

If I wanted to read general comments, I could browse the web for hours a day. I'm more curious about the views of the guys I virtually hang out with.

(So, get those pics (and report) posted soon, Roadglide!)

The republicans just love to get into pissing contests over war wounds. My wound is worse than yours, I bled more. your a pussy for only being SLIGHTLY wounded. What a bunch of Bullshit.

My Father, a veteran of World War II AND Korea, still carries around shrapnel in his back and butt and they almost DENIED him a purple heart but still awarded him a bronze star.

Using Doles justification, Sen John McCain would have not received a purple heart for coming back to the US from 5 years in a North Vietnam POW camp as he too had few/no wounds at the time of his release. The Army can eeven award purple hearts for mental disablity due to war, but seldom does. Even to POW's, who have to apply and attend a hearing to receive it.

Beachman

For Kerry to do what you say would have been real stupid.

If Kerry would have protested his orders at the time he would have been summararily court-marshalled and kicked out of the service on a dishonorable discharge.

Many vets were kicked out for this very reason. Kerry was not dumb, he just waited until the Army couldn't reach him.

And where did you get the "poll" that 77 percent of the vets favor Kerry --- Fox News!!.

In fact many of the vets poled by the VFW and American Legion favor Kerry or at worst, are evenly divided. In Arizona where there are probably more retired vets than anywhere else ( and even heavily republican) it Kerry by a 10 point margin!!!

This is WHY BUSH is slinging mud, This is why one of the architects of the anti-Kerry vets ads (swift boats )is a staffer on Bush'ds campaign. This is why Bush is NOT disavowing these ads--He is losing a (formerly) core constituency.

This is a President and an administration that has boldly lied to the American people, Why should it change. They have it figured out: Out of Bush's own mouth:

You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.
-- Washington, DC March 31, 2001

OG

I have to say that the Swift Boat ads are particularly dishonest because they start out claiming "these men served with John Kerry in Vietnam", about men who did not serve on his boat, and then most of them men talk about stuff they didn't see, or even worse, mix in their opinion about what Kerry did after the war.

This would be like a Texas National Guard airman saying "I served with George Bush in the Texas Air National Guard, and he betrayed his country". Of course, what gets edited out is the rest of the sentence "because he sent to troops to Iraq rather than hunt down Osama Bin Laden".

I've just started "The Republican Noise Machine" By David Brock <http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/brock>. What he's doing is laying out a history of the Right Wing's attempt to influence the media. It's pretty astonishing and explains the "liberal media" label.

Here's what I've gleaned so far. Back in the fifties, the idea of nuetral journalism caught on. That's to say that fair and unbiased was now the goal of the vast majority of press journalists. The conservative view just didn't look very good and the right wing knew it. What it's done since then is establish conservative think tanks, lots of 'em, funded by a handful of business organizations.

These think tanks were given the task of generating right wing papers, articles, op-ed pieces, analysis, you name it. These were then fed to smaller media outlets and gradually accepted by larger outlets. Meanwhile, the conservatives monitored the press. If they even came close to criticizing a conservative effort they flail and gnash teeth about a liberal bias. For the most part, the press did their best to remain neutral. Of course, if they should stray to the right, no one said anything! When you look at reviews of the media, naturally you see more criticisms of it being left slanted more than right slanted, hence, a liberal bias!

The right wing has gone so far as to create numerous grass-roots organizations, often on college campuses, to promote conservative values. Curiously, they use old Stalinist propaganda techniques.

Well, it's damn interesting reading.

Thanks for the review Wombat, I've been reading David Brock on mediamatters.org for a few months and I really appreciate his perspective. I think you've knocked his book up to the top my reading list.

Earlier I mentioned that when George W. was arrested in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol, in Kennebunkport, ME, he did not run his car into a ditch because of enemy fire. Forgetting for the moment about the ambiguous sentence structure I used, I now am wondering whether my recollection that he drove his car into a ditch is accurate or not. Perhaps he was just weaving back and forth across the center line on the road or something similar. Does anyone out there have any specific information about whether his drunk driving incident involved actually running his car into a ditch? Any other details would be appreciated as well.

I don't have any info on George and his DUI but if my memory is correct, Ted Kennedy got away with murder when he had his DUI.

Man, I hate politicians. It's not enough that they screw us and take our money, but they kill us too.

Hey, did you hear that Ted was denied access to planes a few times? They stopped him from getting on because his name looked like that of a suspected terrorist. They actually looked right at him, this guy who has been in the news more often than I care to imagine, and told him no. When he asked why, they said they couldn't tell him. Sheesh! I'm glad the skys are safe from the likes of Ted Kennedy (now maybe I can get a cocktail on my next flight).

Roadglide:

I think you are confusing Ted Kennedy with someone who is actually running for President. Perhaps you can try to deflect criticism of George Bush - who IS running for President this year - with criticism of Woodrow Wilson or Jimmy Carter or Milliard Fillmore.

BTW, are you comfortable with the US having a President who was arrested 3 times?

I know about his one DUI. What are the other two times that you are talking about?

Bush was arrested for trying to steal part of a goalpost after a college football game, and for stealing a Christmas wreath from someone's house or business.

There is also a rumor about a cocaine bust, but I frankly don't much credence into that, unless someone presents some real evidence.

Well now taking into account just how serious those charges are. I guess I could live with a grinch in the White House for another four years.

You could live with those "not so serious" crimes, but how can you put up with a guy who sells the lives of American servicemen for oil profits? How can you accept a president who lies to you? How can you tolerate a leader who can not speak in public without a hand up his ass working his mouth for him? How can you sit still while church and state are re-united?

Seriously, Roadglide, what do you see in Bush? Seriously.

There is ANECDOTAL evidence of Dubya's arrest in Texas, allegedly for prohibited substance posession and/or abuse.

Why is this evidence anecdotal? Before Dubya's run for Governor, ALL, and I mean ALL, records, official and otherwise, ie, even his driving license record, his finacial records, Birth certificate, marriage certificate, etc. etc, and all private and PUBLIC records regarding G.W. Bush were sealed. All these records were then turned over to the George Bush (I) presidential library.

But the cleaning was not altogether complete.

Apparently an investigative reporter filed for and recieved, access to the public/private records of a non-for-profit community service organization.

This non-profit group specialized, and only specialized, in placing people convicted of a crime and that are eligible, into community service. After completion/and or failure, of community service, the record is then sent back to the courts where the original charge was made. The courts can do several things; It can refer the case for further prosecution, it can extend the community service, or it can send the case back to the judge and or prosecution for further consideration. The last option means that the person charged can have the charge/conviction removed and all records expunged or sealed..like it never happened. Texas, and a few other states, have these type of laws.

Apparently these records were, according to the newspaper who uncovered them, accidentally released by the non-profit group to the reporter, and were not to be release to the public, although as they deal with a public issue, can be subpoened or under Texas FOA, released if applied for, which was the case here. They were not to be published. These records were later sealed from the public.

Appearing prominently in one of "accidentally" released records was noe other than one George W. Bush, with acompanying SS number.

Now why would Dubya have to do community service in Texas?

Is this a prerequisite for Texas governorship? A requirement for Harvard Business School?. Or a republican requirement in order to be labeled a compassionate conservative?

No.

This non-profit was placing only those with a felony charge(s), it had a standard requirements for certain offences that were eligible under this program., ie, you could not to community services for violent behavior, theft, or certain other types of convictions. (yes, in order to be placed in this program you had to plead guilty to your offence), Its was most popular with those who had a conviction for drug offences, but was not limited to those offences.

The exact charge or conviction or the exact amount of public service Dubya completed for this group, also was not released/made public in those documents recieved from the FOA, but the amount that was made public was commensurate with those who had similiar community service for cocaine possesion.

It is tantalizing, but not absolute proof.

But what I find it interesting is that these public records that were sealed or expunged, along with the infamous National Guard records that have become "lost" or missing, could clarify exactly what Dubya did, in exchange for community service, or what he didn't do, in regards to his service in the National Guard.

Do we have a former Drug-using, awol/deserter for a commander-in-chief, or a very unlucky guy who just happens to have incriminating, or even exonerating records, disappear.

Power has it's privileges.


OG

I would be interested to see the actual source of the information you are spreading about the George Bush community service. As far as I know, its all a rumor, not a checked fact.

I've been arrested more than anyone. Does that mean I'm not fit to be president?

Probably.


Next question?

Exlorer8939,

This has been a subject of at least 3 (three) books, and probably more than a hundred magazine articles.

The arrest was in 1972.

The reporter was Bill Mintutaglio. The community service was "Project Pull" an inner city Houston program for troubled youth.

Bush initially told reporters that a person with a similiar name was the one who did the community service. When confronted about the SS number, Dubya then admitted to doing community service at the PULL center in 1972, but did not admit to any drug charges.

There are also claims by the Republican Party that ex-president George Bush, Dubya's father, arranged the community service, AFTER he caught Dubya drunk driving. This was later denied by Barbara Bush and then ex-president George Bush.

As I said before, the evidence is ANECDOTAL. No charges are on file for a George W. Bush arrest for cocaine possesion/use. But why would he do community Service in a black inner-city Houston neighborhood. He never did any such "charitable" service before or after 1972. In all comments about the incident, Bush always submits a carefully written response than niether confirms, OR DENIES, his alleged arrest for drug use.

When I first heard this, I was even disbelieving, figuring it was some political ploy. But after further reading and research I was a little more convinced, but mostly skeptical, believing, like most, that something this big could not be hidden. Sorta Like Bill Clinton nailing Miss America, Gennifer Flowers, which, indeed, turned out to be true.

But after reading how Dubya, his father, George Bush, and key governemnent people and agencies inside of Texas, many with close personal and business connections with the Bush family, succeeded in sealing almost all Public records of George W. Bush, I was somewhat convinced.

But it took his lying on the Iraq war and his other actions as President, that really convinced me.

OG

The Associated Press has located the Task Force 115 report for March 13, 1969:

<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818634/>

The records back up Kerry, and disprove the Bush Swifties.

Task force members relied on the intial report of the incident....KERRY wrote the intial report.

Explorer.... did you read the whole story to the link above you you posted above. I think you have just proven that you read only the facts that proves you side of the story and ignore any other part of the story.

You have just showed us why we the public should be entitled to hear from all the veterans that where at there at the time of the incident and hear what they have to say and let us determine what we believe. Of course..... the Democrats now want to deny these veterans who fought for their country their right to free speech.

The Democrats gloated in the lies Michael Moore hides behind in his movie that he has the right to free speech. But....they then want to silence veterans who fought for our country...... who should have the right to tell their side of the story. Let them speak and let the American people decide who they belive.

You guys are worried about the Patriot Act.... but not worried about the Democrats who are telling bookstores they better take off their shelves the Swift Boat book or else. Sounds like the Nazis in Germany the 1930's burning books of anyone who disagreed with them!

Well, I'm nearly finished with "The Republican Noise Machine" and I'm ... well, I don't know what the hell I feel ... some combination of admiration and outrage I suppose.

The book is a bit of a tough read as I'm unfamiliar with most of the people involved (I'm not a news junky). The author does his best to unravel the tangled web of right wing influence -- and does a damn good job. Man, I can’t believe what's been going on in the media over the past three decades.

Let me try to summarize. Over the past thirty years, the right wing has succeeded in chipping away at the press (and media in general). They've managed to take control over most of the major news outlets in order to provide air for their doctrine. The change has been so gradual that the average consumer is totally unaware (the ol’ boiling frog story). They’ve slowly corrupted the idea of an objective press in favor of one that editorializes. Furthermore, instead of looking at the media as a conduit of truth (or at least impartiality), it has come to be looked upon as just another business with a profit motive. While I’m hardly one to oppose profit, I am opposed to skewing the news to make sales.

They’ve used some impressive techniques to give credence to their cause. Consider Fox’s “Fair and Balanced” reporting. Well, a bit of research shows this one to be false, but the technique is brilliant. Simply calling themselves that leads most people to believe it. I actually ran into this one years ago. Some South/Central American dictatorship was being racked over the coals about human rights abuses (they were torturing folks, basically). A US consulting firm told them how to improved their image (without making any policy changes, I should add). They simply hosted an international conference on human rights!

Here’s an example of another right-wing technique. Call PBS “liberal” (it’s balanced if not totally impartial). Invite a couple of right-wingers on your show and a couple of PBS journalists/commentators. Anyone tuning in can see that you have the right well represented so the PBS folks must be the left. Brilliant!

The book is full of simple factual statements, no aggrandizing or preaching and hardly any commentary. He just lays out the facts, frequently using the words of right-wingers. I mentioned that it’s a bit of a tough read; this is because he also goes back and forth in time in order to follow the sequence of events. The same people keep popping up again and again.

Anyway, I am outraged that this has happened, but damn, it was a brilliant strategy and the people involved with organizing the whole thing have my admiration. Roadglide, Rimnoj, Dripper, Beachman, you guys should definitely have a look at this book. Don’t worry, it won’t change your political viewpoint. If anything, you will be even more impressed with the Republican party (hell, I’m impressed).

Beachman,

Kerry did write the initial reports, but they had to be approved up the chain of command and VERIFIED, wither by the crew or local, or on-the-scene combatants.

There was ample opportunity for others to complain as to the veracity of the reports, INCLUDING other swift boat crews in the area.

The plain fact is, that the other crews verified the reports, the chain of command approved the reports and NO ONE questioned the reports until the BUSH smear-masters BRIBED several swift-baot sailors to change thier stories.

When I say bribed, I mean it. I has come to the attention of several reporters that the money behind the "swift boat for truth" campaign, a Houston real estate developer and home builder (with close ties to the Bush family), has "sold" homes to several of the "swift boats for truth" sailors. The price of these homes were sometimes 10's of thousands below market, and in one case, there was NO interest on the mortgage of one home. The bank carried the loan at no interest at the behest of the Home builder, but only for those few selected "swift boats for truth sailors" In another case, the leaders of the SBFT organization, helped one of the sailors out of a difficult financial situation.

The valor and bravery of these SBFT sailors should not be questioned. However, thier veracity in light of thier acceptance of monetary assistance from an arm of the Biush administration re-election campaign, should be questioned. Indeed in light of the fact that it turns out that none of the proponents of the anti-Kerry ads WERE NOT THERE, should be taken into consideration into evaluating Kerry's vietnam actions.

Also remeber this: Had Kerry's actions and reports been considered to have the slightest discrepency or not taken to be true. It would have been found out by the FBI, the DIA and various other governemnt agencies that were unleashed upon Kerry to discredit him, during his anti-vietnam protests in the early seventies. The fact that Kerry was on Nixon's enemies list and was the subject of several sereptitious background investigations to dig up dirt by none other than J.Edgar Hoover, before he died in 1972 Hoover's ability to smear and coerce people was second to none, and make Bush's bully boys seem like pikers. If Nixon, Hoover and the other henchmen failed to discredit
Kerry, only a few years after the events, where there were fresh memories and more witnesses, how come the Bushies and the SBFT mud-slingers "all-of-a-sudden" come up with these accusations out of the blue. Were they better at digging up evidence than the FBI or Defense department?

No.

The Bush re-election campaign RELIES on dirt and smear campaign to make Bush look better than the other candidate. And you have to go pretty low to make Bush look good. The SBFT was just the start. Next would come the "unsubstantiated" reports or rumours followed up by an innocent fact twisted into a fruitful lie. The same people who are financing the SBFT campaign also funded another campaign during the 2000 primaries against Sen. McCain. A phone campaign to fellow Republicans prior to the North Carolina primary revealed to voters that Sen Mccain was father to a black child. The truth was that the McCain family had adopted a orphan child from Singapore.

Those fact were conveniently left out.

McCain lost the primary there, lost momentum and Bush carried the next primaries and eventualy became the Republican nominee.

Several lawyers of the SBFT organization, are, it has been discovered by the press, part of the Bush re-election campaign. This is in clear violation of FEC campaign laws and is being persued by the Kerry administration.

The press has even adopted a new euphism for the Bush campaign

Fear and Smear.

OG

Explain to us Wombat....why do liberals not admit they are liberals. If you you ask a liberal if he is liberal most have a problem saying proudly they are a liberal. Have you ever heard John Kerry say he is a liberal and is proud of it.

On the other hand.....most conservatives will proudly say they are conservative. I have heard George Bush say he is proud to be conservative.

I will tell you why......most liberals.....especially the liberal politicians.....preach their liberal policies and ideas and tell the American people this is how you live your lives ....but in their own lives they do nothing they preach.

Example.....the liberals say the rich people in America are not tax enough.....but have you ever heard of any of the rich liberals writing a check to the US treasury saying here is my fair share of taxes. And then there is Kerry's wife who won't even release her tax records so we know how she is avoiding paying her fair share of taxes! The liberals want every one else to have to live their vision of a liberal America except them selves!

I’m not familiar with Beachman’s story about “… telling bookstores they better take off their shelves the Swift Boat book or else., but I do know that the vast majority of bookstore chains are controlled by the right wing. I’d be curious to know where this “story” came from. I’m betting we can track it back through the right wing machine easily.

As for why liberals try to avoid the liberal label … simple! The right wing has succeeded in associating liberalism with communism, socialism, anti-Americanism, homosexuality, pussyism, you name it! Hell, I don’t blame ‘em! Many other countries actually have Liberal parties (oftentimes in control of the government!) and folks think nothing of claiming to be a liberal there, but not in the home of the brave.

Beachman, are you in favor of the government regulating our sex lives? Do you believe our natural resources should be sold off and not carefully managed? Do you want the government to have free access to all your personal communication? Well, if you said no, then there’s a little bit of liberal in you, my friend.

As for rich liberals writing a cheque to the government … give me a break!

Oh, Beachman just reminded me of another technique. It’s very underhanded, but again, brilliant. What you need to do is get a bit of dirt on your opponent. It doesn’t mater if it’s true or not. If it’s true, exaggerate. If it’s not true, use innuendo. The important thing is that is smear your opponent. Get the info out on the web, blogs usually, and let it get picked up by the quasi news sites (Drudge). From there, it will make it to the right-wing news shows on the radio, then TV. It will make it to the regular press after that.

When the story turns out to false, well, the impression has been made, hasn’t it? Remember when Gore said he invented the internet? He didn’t, did he? He answered a question about what distinguished him from Bill Bradley “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that …" Not the best choice of words, but hardly a claim for inventing anything.

Another example was the Wellstone funeral. In the audience, a few crass people in the audience booed when a few Republicans made a speech. This was picked up and blown way out of proportion by some news agents (“The crowd of 20,000 booed a succession of people who had come to pay their respects to a dead colleague”). This is much more exciting that what actually happened and it spread like wildfire. Well, no, not wildfire because the system has been designed to conduct this sort of rumor through the right wing media with the ease of greased todger sliding up the ol’ bunghole. Yup, we’ve been screwed but good!

Beachman, I think most of the people you would call "liberal" have a perspective more thorough and complex than a simplistic Bush view of you are conservative or liberal, good or evil, black or white, etc... As Wombat points out, it's a sleazy tactic by conservative media to try to dumb down the world using a "with us or against or philosophy" whereby if you're not for Bush, you're a liberal, tax-spending, tree-hugging, war-protesting, anti-American traitor to your country. Only some right commentators like Ann Coulter are this severe, but if you have a mind for detecting patterns or learn through research and reading such as the aforementioned "Republican Noise Machine", then you see the tactics and pattern repeated throughout conservative media to varying degrees. I'm with Wombat on this, I'm both impressed yet repulsed by the manipulative aspect of the propaganda.

...most liberals.....especially the liberal politicians.....preach their liberal policies and ideas and tell the American people this is how you live your lives ....but in their own lives they do nothing they preach.
Wow, now that's effective brainwashing. We have the extraordinary influence of evangelical Chistians and their focus of religion and morality in determining public policy and you accuse the left of telling people how to live their lives? How about Jim Bakker morality preachings or Rush Limbaugh's drug leniancy diatrabes? I hope you have better examples than the ridiculous tax ones. A few people writing voluntary checks to the IRS would be incredibly insignificant and bringing this up as an an even remotely meaningful example is little more than conservative "baa-ing". What is significant is that many on the left recognize the importance of a progressive tax system and that the wealthy left are willing to sacrifice a portion of their own monetary wealth for the good of the American people.

But of course, why have a meaningful debate on the intricacies of tax policy when you can have a dumbed-down focus on an individuals tax records.

Wombat, from what I've read I understand the publisher did not print enough copies, supposedly because the printing date was moved up, but probably to generate the controversy which some conservative sheep are lapping up. I also read that bookstores were receiving complaints of bias. I imagine poor bookstore clerks are getting hell right now from some of the more extreme right sheep coming in and personally accusing the retail workers of being part of an anti-American liberal conspiracy to silence the free speech of American veterans. The intensity with which some of these guys believe that everything printed in conservative media is true and everything else must be blatantly false is scary.

Beachman sez:

"Task force members relied on the intial report of the incident....KERRY wrote the intial report. "

Are you suggesting that ALL of the Navy documents that support John Kerry's account of the events of March 13, 1969 were based on the report of one captain of one swift boat in the task force? Even the reports that served as the basis for medals for members of other boats?

This fellow Larry Thurlow received a Bronze Star for heroism under fire that day, and now he claims that Kerry wrote the report that gave him his medal, but I don't see him giving the medal back.

The way I see it, there are 2 possibilities at this time, a grand conspiracy in which all the captains of all the swift boats agreed to let Kerry write a report that served as the fradulent basis for a bunch of commendations OR that the reports of the day were accurate and Texas money is now provoking some vets to change their story. Note that 7 of the 10 in the ads have either since changed their story or had a different story before Texas money got involved.

Simply repeating the assertion that Kerry's account caused 4 other captains, including the leader of the task force, to sign off on fraudulent claims is simply absurd.

This thought was expressed by Senator Kerrey (not Kerry) today:

Let's say you are a young person considering joining the armed force, maybe do a tour in Iraq. Based on the Swift Boat Vets for Truth slime campaign, now you face the prospect that if you should survive Iraq and go on to try for public office, the opposition can find some other soldiers to slime you for your service.

And a last question for Beachman:

These are the facts and people who support Kerry's accounts:


John Kerry. Yes, I know that doesn't mean much to you.

9 of the 10 members of his crew. Once again, I know it doesn't mean much.

Jim Rasmussen, a Green Beret who Kerry saved.

The official records from Kerry's medals.

The official after-action report. Note that had there been no action, there would have been no report.

The official records from Thurlow's medal.

Testimony from 7 of the 10 Swift Boat Vets for Truth.

The official report from Task Force 115, newly unearthed.

First person accounts from a reporter who sailed with Kerry.


On the other hand are the Swift Boat Vets, of whom 7 of the 10 have changed their story, many weren't there, and who were paid off by Texas cash.

So, my question is WHAT MORE EVIDENCE WOULD CAUSE YOU TO BELIEVE KERRY'S STORY? Do you need Ho Chi Minh to come back from the dead and tell you "John Kerry kicked our butts?"

Ooops, another spurious claim by Beachman that I almost missed:

"You have just showed us why we the public should be entitled to hear from all the veterans that where at there at the time of the incident and hear what they have to say and let us determine what we believe. Of course..... the Democrats now want to deny these veterans who fought for their country their right to free speech. "

First off, I am all for the 527 groups' right to air as many ads as they can afford, its a free country. However, what I am not for is the right of someone to put up an ad filled with lies.

I am sure that you would defend my right to post here, but maybe not my right to make up shit about you and post it here.

There *is* a different between free speech and a non-existent right to lie.

"... the public should be entitled to hear from ... right to free speech."

This is actually another manipulation technique the right used to take control of the media. In the case of the boat boys, given the facts it's obvious to an impartial observer that they have no case. However, the right wing will demand that their story be told. Liberals, being liberal, give them the opportunity. When the shoe is on the other foot, look out!

If the right-wing makes an outlandish claim on right-wing radio, it's freedom of speach. When a mainstream journalist asks questions the right wing doesn't like, well, that's un-American, isn't it?

Beachman, get thee to a library and read that book. As I said, it won't change your political views, but it will fill you admiration for how successfully the right-wing has manipulated the population ... not that there's anything wrong with that.

Beachman,

I don't know whether you want to call me a liberal or not. I have however written a 7 figure check to the IRS for one years taxes. The first digit was not a one or a two or a three, either.

Just because of this one fact, does not mean that I agree with the current administration. Does that make me a liberal? This is my point. Liberal is a word that conservatives call people that don't agree with them. The same way that racists call black people niggers.

Why don't black people refer to themselves as niggers? It's because the label itself has so many negative connotations. It does not mean that they deny being black. They just don't like all of the negative connotations. I would have to say that the same exists for the word liberals.

Hey, Beachman! What's your opinion on the smear campaign that Bush inflicted on John McCain back in 2000?

I think you all are just wasting your words on Beachman. No matter what evidence comes out he won't change his mind, unless maybe Jesus himself comes down to tell him the truth. By the way, Jesus was a liberal.

Hmm, I'm not so sure he was a liberal, but I'll keep an open mind. Jesus was a communist though (and, man, does that ever get the fundies' knickers in a knot when I explain that one to them).

Bluestraveller-

I am glad you brought up the analogy of liberals and "niggers." Black people call each other nigger more than any white people ever call them nigger.....but the only time it is reported is when a white person calls them a nigger.....then it is a crime.

The same with liberals ....they call each other liberals.....but when conservatives calls a liberal....it is a crime.

Exployer

You are for free speech but "there is a difference between free speech and an Non-exsistent lie." I didn't hear you or John Kerry dennouncing the LIES Michael Moore's movies or when George Sorros was comparing Bush to Hitler.

My question to all Vietnam vets on the board, plus those who have know and have talked to a Vietnam vet (which means just about everybody). My question - do you know of one vet who agreed with that fucked-up war? And, are there any vets who, upon returning, didn't think about kicking the shit out of their local Congressman for helping to send him to Vietnam?

Ya know, Beachman, if Moore told blatent lies in his documentary, I'd agree with you. I'll accept errors and will let pass a few editing techniques, but the fact is that there's so much damning evidence against Bush that those errors don't amount to much.

Now consider the Boat Boys. They were paid by the right-wing (with ties to the Bush campaign) to produce their book. Conflict of interest. They didn't make small errors or take editing liberties, they told whopping lies. When at least one of the contributers tried to set the records straight, he was dismissed outright.

These guys are not about the truth, they're all about smearing Kerry (just as was done against Gore). It's a technique that works.

(Beachman, if you know a good site that documents Moore's errors (lies, if you will), I would appreciate reading up on the situation. I only ask that the source not be a right-wing mouthpiece but well researched and impartial journalism.)

I obviously have too much time on my hands because I just started looking into the story about the vet trying to hand deliver a letter to Bush at his ranch. Is it a photo op? Sure!

Well, one of the stories is from mensnewsdaily.com. This is exactly the sort of sort of right-wing quasi-news sites the right-wing loves. The site seems to cater to angry white men (a demographic the Republicans are totally horny over).

The article starts "In a startlingly bad piece of political theater, John Kerry sent his supporter Max Cleland to hand-deliver a letter to President Bush at his ranch in Texas. The 25 August 2004 letter contained a plea for the President to infringe upon the free speech rights of a group known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth... Infinge upon their right? No, just condem their ads.

They attempt to add legitimacy to the argument by including a reference to support their claims: "Judicial Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that investigates government corruption."

Well, I took the liberty of checking out that site. Non-partisan? Oh, brother! It's full of stories slanted against Democrates and favoring Republicans -- just another cog in the noise machine.

<sigh>

How about the newspaper headline Moore put in his movie about the recount in Florida. The newspaper he showed says the headline never existed. Why isn't John Kerry condemming the movie!

By the way about the recount in Florida. It seems to recently come to be known that about 50,000 voters.... voted both in Florida and their home states in the 2000 election. A violation of Federal law.

It seem that 68% of these voters where Democrats.....less than 10% were Republicans.

Lets see since all these votes are considered illegal...lets do the math.

68% of 50,000 is 34,000.
10% of 50,000 is 5,000.

34,000 - 5,000 is 29,000

So 29,000 fraudlent net votes would be taken from Gore in Florida in the 2000 election.

29,000 + the 535

It looks like in 2000 Bush won Florida by 29,535 votes.

If this were reverse and the 68% were Republican this would be dominating the natonal news....the Democrats would be outraged. This has been big news here in Florida....I live here. But nationally it is virtually unknown.

Where is the outrage from the liberals.....!

Beachie:

Are you suggesting that Florida is the only state where fraudulent votes would have made a difference? Or, do the other states that Bush won by a razor's edge suddenly not exist? In how many states did Felons vote for Bush?

BTW, I believe (and you may correct me on this) that the news story was that 43,000 Florida voters were discovered to be registered in New York state this summer, not in the last election.

Beachman,

OK, let's agree that all parties have the right to publish what they want, except that there are limits, where it comes to out and out lies.

Furthermore, there are statements that are over the line in politics. As an example, Moveon.org produced an ad trashing the Bush record in the Texas National Guard, and Kerry asked that they not air that ad.

Michael Moore's documentary contains the usual number of inaccuracies, file footage, composites and the like. Its not Kerry's job to point them out.

On the other hand, the Boat People's ad contains out and out lies, and 7 of the 10 Boaties have contradicted themselves.

I am sure that you will not be able to distinguish between inaccuracies in a 2 hour movie and lies in a 30 second ad, but so be it. BTW, Farenheit 911 is coming out on DVD Real Soon Now.

Exployer

I agree with you let all parties publish what they want....that is why in the commericials we hear the canidate saying they approve of the message.

Bush has been on the record many times as saying he doesn't approve of the 527's because the canidates have no accountablity. 95 % of the money for these ads from 527's are for the Democrats.....Kerry has not denounced any of them. What about the ads comparing Bush to Hitler....did Kerry object to that.

As to the Florida voter's...the story relates to voters voting in both New York and Florida in the 2000 election.

A simple solution to this problem and a solution to many other problems facing this country is a national ID card. The liberals will have nothing to do with that. By the way the voting problems have been going on in Dade county Florida for decades and the Democrats have controlled that county that long....they still are fighting and resisting changes in the voting process even after the 2000 election.